Why I hate people sometimes
This is a gay guy arguing that gay marriage is homophobic. No. SERIOUSLY. (My comments are in italics).
The way I see it, rings and ceremonies are for females, so they can show off to their female friends, and so their female mothers can show off to their female friends and relatives [don't you just love it when LGBT people reinforce gender stereotypes?]. You know what I want? A TAX BREAK. That’s what would make me misty-eyed. I don’t need anyone to morally “recognize” or “celebrate” my partnership [good for you. That's you].
Indeed, it seems to me that liberals shouldn’t be so fast to agitate for gay marriage - after all, it often (but not always) comes with tax benefits, aka, tax BREAKS, the evil boogeyman of the economically ignorant liberal mainstream [it doesn't work how you think it works, sir. We only oppose tax breaks for a small group of top earners]. Considering how much more in taxes homosexuals pay due to their generally higher incomes when compared with heterosexuals, gay marriage might actually endanger the ability of the groups who hate our guts to get food stamps. Oh, what a dilemma! Warm-fuzzy feeling from same-sex marriage or warm-fuzzy feeling from lazy bums [this refers to black people and Hispanics] getting free shit?
Actually, all relationship-based tax breaks should be abolished. Then we can end school taxes. If you have kids, YOU pay to educate them. If you can’t afford it, don’t have kids. If you were too irresponsible to use birth control or too religious to have an abortion, you deserve to be poor [what if people, you know, actually want children and actually want them to have a good life?]. Really, if you’re that irresponsible, your kids are unlikely to turn out very much better with a crappy public education. Either way, it is none of my business or responsibility to educate something that gushed forth from someone else’s innards [yes it is. Public schooling is a human right of the child and the family, whatever that family may be. We are living in a society]. But I digress.
In closing, nobody needs state-recognized marriage for any reason at all. All the arrangements of marriage can be duplicated with contracts, and you do not have to choose the one-size-fits-all bundle that marriage forces upon couples. Even if gay couples do want that bundle, civil unions with the exact same provisions as legal marriage should be good enough for those not so desperate for society’s moral approval [wow, somebody PLEASE explain to this guy that language impacts society. Please?].
I do not need the state to recognize my love, thanks Keith [Olbermann, a left-wing US politics and sports commentator]. Now I’d like at least all heterosexuals, if not their loudmouth gay friends, to shut the hell up on the matter. It does not impress me that you have compassion for gay people; I simply do not think you are a mouthbreathing dingbat for finding anything at all wrong with homosexual behavior [what does this sentence even mean?]. That’s the expected default, get it? Now stop trying to force your oppressive, frilly, and boring traditional institutions meant to ensure monogamy on my hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex. [I'm happy for you, sir. Compassionate human society and law will be over here if you want us.]
ETA: The second-to-last paragraph actually does have a cogent social and political point, even if it's one that I don't really agree with. There are arguments to be made against the slapdash legal conflation of religious union and civil union. Doesn't change how twisted a lot of the rest of this is, though.
The way I see it, rings and ceremonies are for females, so they can show off to their female friends, and so their female mothers can show off to their female friends and relatives [don't you just love it when LGBT people reinforce gender stereotypes?]. You know what I want? A TAX BREAK. That’s what would make me misty-eyed. I don’t need anyone to morally “recognize” or “celebrate” my partnership [good for you. That's you].
Indeed, it seems to me that liberals shouldn’t be so fast to agitate for gay marriage - after all, it often (but not always) comes with tax benefits, aka, tax BREAKS, the evil boogeyman of the economically ignorant liberal mainstream [it doesn't work how you think it works, sir. We only oppose tax breaks for a small group of top earners]. Considering how much more in taxes homosexuals pay due to their generally higher incomes when compared with heterosexuals, gay marriage might actually endanger the ability of the groups who hate our guts to get food stamps. Oh, what a dilemma! Warm-fuzzy feeling from same-sex marriage or warm-fuzzy feeling from lazy bums [this refers to black people and Hispanics] getting free shit?
Actually, all relationship-based tax breaks should be abolished. Then we can end school taxes. If you have kids, YOU pay to educate them. If you can’t afford it, don’t have kids. If you were too irresponsible to use birth control or too religious to have an abortion, you deserve to be poor [what if people, you know, actually want children and actually want them to have a good life?]. Really, if you’re that irresponsible, your kids are unlikely to turn out very much better with a crappy public education. Either way, it is none of my business or responsibility to educate something that gushed forth from someone else’s innards [yes it is. Public schooling is a human right of the child and the family, whatever that family may be. We are living in a society]. But I digress.
In closing, nobody needs state-recognized marriage for any reason at all. All the arrangements of marriage can be duplicated with contracts, and you do not have to choose the one-size-fits-all bundle that marriage forces upon couples. Even if gay couples do want that bundle, civil unions with the exact same provisions as legal marriage should be good enough for those not so desperate for society’s moral approval [wow, somebody PLEASE explain to this guy that language impacts society. Please?].
I do not need the state to recognize my love, thanks Keith [Olbermann, a left-wing US politics and sports commentator]. Now I’d like at least all heterosexuals, if not their loudmouth gay friends, to shut the hell up on the matter. It does not impress me that you have compassion for gay people; I simply do not think you are a mouthbreathing dingbat for finding anything at all wrong with homosexual behavior [what does this sentence even mean?]. That’s the expected default, get it? Now stop trying to force your oppressive, frilly, and boring traditional institutions meant to ensure monogamy on my hot, promiscuous, anonymous gay sex. [I'm happy for you, sir. Compassionate human society and law will be over here if you want us.]
ETA: The second-to-last paragraph actually does have a cogent social and political point, even if it's one that I don't really agree with. There are arguments to be made against the slapdash legal conflation of religious union and civil union. Doesn't change how twisted a lot of the rest of this is, though.